Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 247 (1.42 seconds)
Documents citing Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Zaharulnisha & Ors on 29 April, 2008

Gourabai W/O Ganesh Patil vs The Divisional Manager on 3 September, 2019

12. In the instant case, Ex.P8 (Driving Licence) produced by the claimants itself clearly shows that the driving licence held by the rider of the motorcycle is not valid as per Section 10(2) of the Act, whereas he is holding licence for LMV. But he was found driving different class of vehicle, i.e., motorcycle with gear. Therefore, there is clear violation of the conditions of the policy - Ex.R1 produced by the Insurer. Therefore, the Tribunal committed error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. However, in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Zaharulnisha (supra) as well as in Pappu and Others (supra), the Insurance Company shall satisfy the award in the first instance and then can recover the same from the owner of the motorcycle in question.
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - K Natarajan - Full Document

The Divisional Manager, vs Smt. Gourabai W/O Ganesh Patil on 3 September, 2019

12. In the instant case, Ex.P8 (Driving Licence) produced by the claimants itself clearly shows that the driving licence held by the rider of the motorcycle is not valid as per Section 10(2) of the Act, whereas he is holding licence for LMV. But he was found driving different class of vehicle, i.e., motorcycle with gear. Therefore, there is clear violation of the conditions of the policy - Ex.R1 produced by the Insurer. Therefore, the Tribunal committed error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. However, in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Zaharulnisha (supra) as well as in Pappu and Others (supra), the Insurance Company shall satisfy the award in the first instance and then can recover the same from the owner of the motorcycle in question.
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - K Natarajan - Full Document

National Insurance Company Limited vs Smt.Kusam Kumari And Others on 8 February, 2012

16. I have considered the said submission. The arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant in respect of these contention carries weight and has to be accepted. The driving licence Ex.RX is admitted by Saran Lal as he has stated that he was holding the driving licence to ply HMV, MMV and LMV. The question before Apex Court in authority Oriental Insurance Co. vs. Zaharulnisha & Ors' case (supra) was whether a person holding a driving licence to ply LMV can ply the scooter a two wheeler. The answer to that question has been given in negative by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - K C Puri - Full Document

Sri. Irappa A/F Adiveppa Munavalli, vs Sri. Krishnaji Nageshrao Kulkarni, on 20 March, 2017

Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Zaharulniosha and others, it is clearly held that if the scooterist did not have licence, and rather possessed a driving licence for HMV, insurer cannot be held liable. Therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the and the Full Bench of this Court are straight on the point. Applying the ratio laid down in the above cases, it can be clearly held that the Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. Therefore, this point is answered in negative.
Karnataka High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Geeta vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd on 6 January, 2009

17. The same principle was followed in the other judgments titled Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Zaharulnisha and Others, National Insurance Company vs. Baljit Kaur 2004 ACJ 428 Supreme Court, etc. cited (supra). It is, therefore, clear from the testimony of R1W1/A and the various admissions made by R­2 as well as corroboratory evidence adduced by the petitioners, the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him in the road accident with the offending motorcycle which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by R­3 who was not holding a valid driving licence, being a minor at the relevant time. There was, thus, a breech of terms and conditions of the policy by the insured R­2.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next